Proceedingsof the SUFFOLK INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY 4 °4vv.es`Egi vI V°BkIAS VOLUME XXV, PART 1 (published 1950) PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY BY W. E. HARRISON & SONS, LTD., THE ANCIENT HOUSE, IPSWI611. The costof publishing this paper has beenpartially defrayedby a Grant from the Council for British Archeology. THE SUTTON HOO SHIP-BURIAL Recenttheoriesand somecommentsongeneralinterpretation By R. L. S. BRUCE-MITFORD, SEC. S.A. INTRODUCTION The Sutton Hoo ship-burial was discovered more than ten years ago. During these years especially since the end of the war in Europe has made it possible to continue the treatment and study of the finds and proceed with comparative research, its deep significance for general and art history, Old English literature and European archmology has become more and more evident. Yet much uncertainty prevails on general issues. Many questions cannot receive their final answer until the remaining mounds of the grave-field have been excavated. Others can be answered, or at any rate clarified, now. The purpose of this article is to clarify the broad position of the burial in English history and archmology. For example, it has been said that ' practically the whole of the Sutton Hoo ship-treasure is an importation from the Uppland province of Sweden. The great bulk of the work was produced in Sweden itself.' 1 Another writer claims that the Sutton Hoo ship- burial is the grave of a Swedish chief or king.' Clearly we must establish whether it is part of English archxology, or of Swedish, before we can start to draw from it the implications that we are impatient to draw. The identity of the person buried, or commemorated, and our historical appreciation of the monument, depend not only on whether the grave is English or Swedish, but upon whether, if English, it is that of an East Anglian king, or of someone else; whether it is pagan or Christian; and whether or not it originally contained a body, or was constructed as a cenotaph. Opposite views have recently been expressed on these points, and it is desirable that an official assessment of the issues should be offered to students even though it cannot be regarded as final. It is the aim of this article to provide such an assessment. The two most recent articles in which these questions have been discussed appeared together in Fornvännen,h.2-3, 1948. They H Maryon, The Sutton Hoo shield,' Antiquity XX, 1946, 28. 2 Birger Nerinan; Fornvannen, h. 2-3, 1948, 65-39. THE WUFFINGAS Wehha (Guechan) Wuffa (or Uffa) Tyttla Redwald Ene d. 624 or 625 Raegenhere Earpwald Sigebehrt Ecric Anna Aethelhere Aethelwald - - d. 616 d. 627 8 or 632 3 (Killed together soon after 640) d. 654 d. 655 (Nov. 15) d.663 - 4 Aldwulf d. 713 Aelfwald Elric d. 740 FIG. 1. THEFAMILYTREEOF THEEASTANGLIANROYALHOUSE,THE WUFFINGAS. (Based on Chadwick, Antiquity xiv). Those who came to the throne are shown in italics THE SUTTON HOO SHIP-BURIAL 3 are ' Sutton Hoo och Beowulf ' (Sutton Hoo and Beowulf) by Professor Sune Lindqvist, Professor of Northern Archxology in Uppsala University, and ' Sutton Hoo: en svensk kunga- eller hovdinggrav? ' (Sutton Hoo : the grave of a Swedish king or prince? ) by Professor Birger Nerman, Director .of the Statens Historiska Museum, Stockholm. Professor Lindqvist's paper has appeared in English translation in Antiquity 1948, 131-140. In maintaining that the grave is a Swede's, Dr. Nerman claims the use of a boat and other general aspects of the funeral arrange- ments as Swedish.3 As far as the objects that make up the burial- deposit are concerned, however, he claims out of the lengthy grave - inventory only three pieces — the sword, the helmet and the shield — as made in Sweden. The rest he seems prepared to regard as objects acquired in Suffolk by the Swedish intruder, as gifts, spoils taken in fighting, or rewards for services rendered. Thus, (if we set aside for the moment the notion of wholesale importation, which is indeed out of the question)it may not seem to matter much to English archwology whether the man buried or commemorated is a Swede or not. The silver dishes and other silver pieces, the Coptic bowl, the Merovingian coins and perhaps the hanging- bowls (if made in Ireland or the Celtic north or west) would remain imports into Suffolk and a part of English archwology, even though they eventually came into the hands of a Swedish intruder; and the bulk at any rate of the gold jewellery and most of the•remaining finds are, in Nerman's view, local English work. Questions of the first importance do, nevertheless, depend upon the identity of the buried or commemorated man. The meaning of the direct link between England and Sweden, now revealed for the first time, and beyond all question, at Sutton Hoo,4 depends wholly upon whether the Swedish-seeming traits occur in the grave of a stray Swede or in that of an established English king. Before this important question can be satisfactorily discussed it is necessary to clarify related questions : whether the monument is a king's or not, whether it is pagan or Christian, whether it was grave or cenotaph. The cenotaph question has just been made the subject of a special study. As yet the outlines only of this investigation have been given in print.3 It is to be published fully elsewhere, and the question will not be discussed here in detail. We must, however, consider the question of the royal character of the burial, the prospects of identifying the person buried or commemorated, and the pagan or op.cit. 88. See below. 5 A summary of a lecture, by the author of this article, entitled 'The problem of the Sutton Hoo cenotaph ', which was delivered to the Royal Archnological Institute in January 1950, appeared in The ArchaeologicalNews Letter, Vol. 2. No. 10, March 1950, 166-9. Further important results have been obtained from laboratory investigations since that date. 4 SUFFOLK INSTITUTE OF ARCH/EOLOGY Christian character of the monument. IS THIS A KING'S BURIAL ? In his learned study, published in 1940, on the question of the identity of the man for whom the Sutton Hoo treasure-ship was buried, the late Professor H. M. Chadwick wrote the following words:— I find it impossible to believe that in the times with which we are concerned a treasure of such amount and value can have belonged to anyone except a king. According to heroic standards then recognised all men of the highest rank were dependent on the king and expected to present to him, as their lord, everything that they acquired by their exploits—though doubtless they looked for rewards. We may refer to Beowulf, 2052 ff, where the hero, on his return home, presents to the king and queen all the treasures which have been given to him at the Danish. court. There is no evidence that England in the seventh century possessed a wealthy independent class, whether mercantile, industrial or professional. It does not necessarily follow that the person buried or commemorated was himself a king. We know of extrava- gant funeral honours paid by kings to their mothers and wives; and this funeral may possibly have been in honour of the father or other near relative of a king. But on the whole it is not very likely. The great funerals we hear of in early Teutonic history and tradition are those of kings themselves; we may thus cite e.g. Jordanes, Get. 49 and Beowulf, 3134 if. At all events it is difficult to believe that a cenotaph on this scale can have been intended £m' anyone except a king.° The royal status of the grave has been further discussed by the present writer in the previous issue of these Proceedings.' What has been said there should be read in conjunction with Chadwick's treatment of this subject in the article quoted. It seems impossible to doubt that the Sutton Hoo burial is royal in the sense that it reflects the royal court and illustrates the topmost stratum of Saxon society. The treasures, if not actually personal to a king, may legitimately be regarded at least as ' tribal treasures ' (peodgestreon, Beowulf, 1218-9) distributed by him from the national treasure-store. 6 Who was he ? ' Antiquity XIV, 1940,76-7. 7 R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford, Saxon Rendlesham ', Proceedingsof the Suffolk Institute of Arclucologyand Natural Histog, XXIV, 1948,231-4. THE SUTTON HOO SHIP-BURIAL 5 The set of ten 8 silver bowls, probably, and certainly the pair of spoons,6 have a specifically Christian character.1° We read in Bede of gifts from Popes to Saxon kings and queens, converts or• a prospective converts. ' A number of gifts of divers sorts ' . shirt with ornament in gold, and a cloak made at Ancyra' . 12 4 a looking glass of silver and a comb of ivory gilt with gold.' 13 Our spoons and perhaps the set of silver bowls seem to come into this category i.e. gifts to royalty. We do not read of any general distri- bution of such gifts. Important nobles might well, for all we know, as converts or prospective converts, receive from a bishop an in- dividual token of this kind. We would not expect to meet such gifts in the archmological record, as I do not believe they would normally be placed in the grave of such a recipient, if he were Christian. There is a body of opinion however that can regard lavish burials such as those at Sutton Hoo 14 and Taplow 18 as the graves of Christians.